Are you suggesting that you don't have an agenda?   

Since you are so obsessed with announcing who might have an agenda, what is your agenda?
I think we should be told.
Apparently you must have an agenda to post here, comment on actual data is symptomatic of having an agenda.
It makes things very difficult.
If you don't have an agenda.
One will be pinned on you.
 

Methinks you doth protest too much, Four.

Why are you so touchy - have I touched a nerve?   It is blindingly obvious where you stand - your contributions are largely patronising or sarcastic, always playing down the state of the ice.

My agenda is to report on the state of the ice.  As I have stated before, I regard it as indicative of climate change, as do the researchers studying the subject.

Perhaps you should commit more time to the science and less to petty posting.

The reality and hype about present ice loss needs the perspective of climate history.

 

Are you suggesting that you don't have an agenda?   

Since you are so obsessed with announcing who might have an agenda, what is your agenda?
I think we should be told.
Apparently you must have an agenda to post here, comment on actual data is symptomatic of having an agenda.
It makes things very difficult.
If you don't have an agenda.
One will be pinned on you.
 

Methinks you doth protest too much, Four.

Why are you so touchy - have I touched a nerve?   It is blindingly obvious where you stand - your contributions are largely patronising or sarcastic, always playing down the state of the ice.

My agenda is to report on the state of the ice.  As I have stated before, I regard it as indicative of climate change, as do the researchers studying the subject.

Perhaps you should commit more time to the science and less to petty posting.

And indeed it is, but, fours position, like mine is that much the same/similar has happened in the past and obviously caused by natural variability - as per the 1920' and 30's and shown on the ice maps. The reduction of ice cover in the 20's and 30's is but a blip as must have happened in the MWP.

The reality and hype about present ice loss needs the perspective of climate history.

It's odd that I see most of the 'real' sceptics being those who , after examination, can accept the papers/data showing us that something odd and worrying is going on with climate? The only folk not seeming to bother with the'questioning' are those who instantly say 'No', 'Wrong' and then go on to reel out the same old same old.......

As for the 'canes? Science appear to agree that whilst we may see more invests the shear environment will only allow the strongest to survive.

Are we not seeing a glut of invests/named storms and then a dangerous few that turn big and nasty?

Back to the Arctic.

So what is going on up north? anyone like to comment?

*There is no doubt something has changed in recent years compared to the climate of previous decades. We could say this is down to instant global communications but a closer examinatiom of the news stories usually reveal that the reported event is the worst for decades or hundreds of years. Not necessarily unprecedented, just a long return period, too long for living human observation.

What is going on up north may be the cause or it might be a symptom - I'm undecided about that; IMO there is still the likelihood that much of what we are seeing is a cyclical event with some added human activity forcings.

You are right about the invests in the Atlantic, many have fizzled out due to shear, dry air and unfavourable TUTTs. I avidly follow storm 2k during the season - many professional mets on that site - "something has changed" is a frequent comment.

Excellent post nouska, thoughtful and considered.

**I think its both - it is being driven and is also a driver and human activity plays some part in this process.

My concern is that the ice is being 'primed' for rapid melt later and the constant movement of the ice is eroding the larger floes into ever smaller floes. we know how important ice mass to surface area is come any 'melt' and so the worry has to be that the upcoming 'warmth' of summer will have no difficulty in reducing the rubble to water? Imagine a drink with ice cubes and a drink with crushed ice. which loses it's ice first?

What if your concerns are futile and we start to see the signs of a recovery taking place, will the goalposts be moved like they are in every other area of this so called scientific theory. Pure speculation GW but unlike you I have no idea at what the outcome will be.

What if it turns out that your groundless endless criticisms turn out to be deeply flawed? If the ice recovers, i.e. we see a sustained upward trend, not another blip in the downward trend, I'll be amongst the first to celebrate. But if we see a continuing decline at what point will you put up your hands and admit you (and a few others) were wrong?

Its called constructive criticism Gandalf. GW and a few others think its a foregone conclusion, whilst I think nothing in life is certain and as four says all assumptions are reliant on warming continuing. Which regardless of trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear, is not!

Yes, I find this strange, when the MetO and NASA have recently said specifically or implied that "the climate (system) is much more complicated that was thought" How can that not suggest a little caution might be appropriate?

What they mean by that is there is considerable uncertainty over the scale of warming likely over the next 100 years. Some models suggest as high as 9C and others as low as 2C in the arctic. What they do not mean is the science of antropic induced global warming is still uncertainin its existance or that it has happened. Again, to use my metaphor we may not understand everything about the hedgehog ansestory but we do not deny evolution is real nor do we claim that it is uncertain or still up for debate. 

The UV correlation has direct implications for NH circulation patterns (with the jetstream meanderings being obviously indicative) and therefore Arctic ice cover and condition.

 

Are you suggesting that you don't have an agenda?   

Since you are so obsessed with announcing who might have an agenda, what is your agenda?
I think we should be told.
Apparently you must have an agenda to post here, comment on actual data is symptomatic of having an agenda.
It makes things very difficult.
If you don't have an agenda.
One will be pinned on you.
 

Methinks you doth protest too much, Four.

Why are you so touchy - have I touched a nerve?   It is blindingly obvious where you stand - your contributions are largely patronising or sarcastic, always playing down the state of the ice.

My agenda is to report on the state of the ice.  As I have stated before, I regard it as indicative of climate change, as do the researchers studying the subject.

Perhaps you should commit more time to the science and less to petty posting.

And indeed it is, but, fours position, like mine is that much the same/similar has happened in the past and obviously caused by natural variability - as per the 1920' and 30's and shown on the ice maps. The reduction of ice cover in the 20's and 30's is but a blip as must have happened in the MWP.

The reality and hype about present ice loss needs the perspective of climate history.

Ah, but that's the point. Are we talking about how you think climate history suggests the ice used to be in the past or what the proper scientific research says? For someone who wants rigorous science this wish-fulfilment type reliance on historical narrative sits uncomfortably.

Anyway, your contributions are significantly more constructive than Four's blatant posts with their denier-style and sarcastic undertones. When people post in that style they have to expect a reaction.

 

Are you suggesting that you don't have an agenda?   

Since you are so obsessed with announcing who might have an agenda, what is your agenda?
I think we should be told.
Apparently you must have an agenda to post here, comment on actual data is symptomatic of having an agenda.
It makes things very difficult.
If you don't have an agenda.
One will be pinned on you.
 

Methinks you doth protest too much, Four.

Why are you so touchy - have I touched a nerve?   It is blindingly obvious where you stand - your contributions are largely patronising or sarcastic, always playing down the state of the ice.

My agenda is to report on the state of the ice.  As I have stated before, I regard it as indicative of climate change, as do the researchers studying the subject.

Perhaps you should commit more time to the science and less to petty posting.

And indeed it is, but, fours position, like mine is that much the same/similar has happened in the past and obviously caused by natural variability - as per the 1920' and 30's and shown on the ice maps. The reduction of ice cover in the 20's and 30's is but a blip as must have happened in the MWP.

The reality and hype about present ice loss needs the perspective of climate history.

Ah, but that's the point. Are we talking about how you think climate history suggests the ice used to be in the past or what the proper scientific research says? For someone who wants rigorous science this wish-fulfilment type reliance on historical narrative sits uncomfortably.

Anyway, your contributions are significantly more constructive than Four's blatant posts with their denier-style and sarcastic undertones. When people post in that style they have to expect a reaction.

It is obvious that that the historical narrative sits uncomfortably with the consensus. Read Lambs stuff; read Ladorie's "Times of Feast and Famine"'; look at the Arctic ice extent maps posted recently. It's not wish-fulfilment but observational data and it's upto climate science to explain, otherwise as Feynman said, the theory is wrong. (models are wrong and short of being complete)

Then franky publish a paper that shows this, or at least referance one. I notice you like to quote Feynman on the ignorance of experts. But this would have meant that the evidence should stand upon its own merits, not that people should disagree with the experts just because they can. Bottom line is, the AGW doubters produce poor references: 2ndry sources, misintepretation of primary literature and cherry picking. I can't help thinking some people have the scientific method the wrong way round: look at evidence -> form conclusions. Not form conclusion (AGW false) -> Cherry pick evidence to support.  

Looking hard for historical periods when ice loss may have occurred in order to make some point about present ice-loss is, well, entirely missing the point, which is that the Arctic is a lot more sensitive to climate forcings than was at first apparent. Hence the original sea-ice predictions being such an underestimate. The early Holocene seasonal ice-loss is another example; the early Pleistocene super-interglacials are yet another - and far more serious indicator - because they involved the loss of the Greenland ice-sheet too!

Not at all. It is the point. The consensus has argued that Arctic ice has been very steady for a long, long time and only now are we seeing how sensitive Arctic ice is to temperature or climate circulation changes. This 'steady' position is what I have objected to for several years. Arctic ice has from what data we do have, has varied a great deal over the last 1000 years and if you go along with the hockey stick has changed during this period when temperatures, according to this reconstuction, have not changed much as compared with the very recent past. The Arctic ice in this scenario, is very sensitive to changes.

That Arctic ice is a lot more sensitive to climate forcings is not something that important, except that either it demonstrates that the models are wrong or that the models algorthms have been constructed on data that is also the basis of the hockey stick, What do you think?

 

Are you suggesting that you don't have an agenda?   

Since you are so obsessed with announcing who might have an agenda, what is your agenda?
I think we should be told.
Apparently you must have an agenda to post here, comment on actual data is symptomatic of having an agenda.
It makes things very difficult.
If you don't have an agenda.
One will be pinned on you.
 

Methinks you doth protest too much, Four.

Why are you so touchy - have I touched a nerve?   It is blindingly obvious where you stand - your contributions are largely patronising or sarcastic, always playing down the state of the ice.

My agenda is to report on the state of the ice.  As I have stated before, I regard it as indicative of climate change, as do the researchers studying the subject.

Perhaps you should commit more time to the science and less to petty posting.

And indeed it is, but, fours position, like mine is that much the same/similar has happened in the past and obviously caused by natural variability - as per the 1920' and 30's and shown on the ice maps. The reduction of ice cover in the 20's and 30's is but a blip as must have happened in the MWP.

The reality and hype about present ice loss needs the perspective of climate history.

Ah, but that's the point. Are we talking about how you think climate history suggests the ice used to be in the past or what the proper scientific research says? For someone who wants rigorous science this wish-fulfilment type reliance on historical narrative sits uncomfortably.

Anyway, your contributions are significantly more constructive than Four's blatant posts with their denier-style and sarcastic undertones. When people post in that style they have to expect a reaction.

It is obvious that that the historical narrative sits uncomfortably with the consensus. Read Lambs stuff; read Ladorie's "Times of Feast and Famine"'; look at the Arctic ice extent maps posted recently. It's not wish-fulfilment but observational data and it's upto climate science to explain, otherwise as Feynman said, the theory is wrong. (models are wrong and short of being complete)

Then franky publish a paper that shows this, or at least referance one. I notice you like to quote Feynman on the ignorance of experts. But this would have meant that the evidence should stand upon its own merits, not that people should disagree with the experts just because they can. Bottom line is, the AGW doubters produce poor references: 2ndry sources, misintepretation of primary literature and cherry picking. I can't help thinking some people have the scientific method the wrong way round: look at evidence -> form conclusions. Not form conclusion (AGW false) -> Cherry pick evidence to support.  

Observations are difficult to argue with and Feynman makes this very clear, but I would be pleased to hear your opinions as to which observations you consider wrong.

Edit: You refer to poor references: I think you are right here upto a point and I have several times explained you have to pick out the wheat from the chaff, but, Lamb and Ladorie? No.

Edit2: I don't think AGW is wrong - only that I think sensitivity is low.

Ah, but that's the point. Are we talking about how you think climate history suggests the ice used to be in the past or what the proper scientific research says? For someone who wants rigorous science this wish-fulfilment type reliance on historical narrative sits uncomfortably.

Anyway, your contributions are significantly more constructive than Four's blatant posts with their denier-style and sarcastic undertones. When people post in that style they have to expect a reaction.

It is obvious that that the historical narrative sits uncomfortably with the consensus. Read Lambs stuff; read Ladorie's "Times of Feast and Famine"'; look at the Arctic ice extent maps posted recently. It's not wish-fulfilment but observational data and it's upto climate science to explain, otherwise as Feynman said, the theory is wrong. (models are wrong and short of being complete)

Sorry Dave, we're heading down a well-trodden path here.  Your stance reveals a biased scepticism.  It is anything but obvious that "the historical narrative sits uncomfortably with the consensus".   You revel in taking pops at the reliance on limited tree ring data yet seem content to put faith in narratives about the state of the ice.  Furthermore your use of the word 'consensus' misses the point.  Look at the science, look at the data, look at what those who have studied the Arctic have to say.

None of the narratives can deal with ice volume.  The narratives I have seen refer to thick ice that is no longer present.

I'm afraid there are occasions when your scepticism leads you badly astray.

Ah, but that's the point. Are we talking about how you think climate history suggests the ice used to be in the past or what the proper scientific research says? For someone who wants rigorous science this wish-fulfilment type reliance on historical narrative sits uncomfortably.

Anyway, your contributions are significantly more constructive than Four's blatant posts with their denier-style and sarcastic undertones. When people post in that style they have to expect a reaction.

It is obvious that that the historical narrative sits uncomfortably with the consensus. Read Lambs stuff; read Ladorie's "Times of Feast and Famine"'; look at the Arctic ice extent maps posted recently. It's not wish-fulfilment but observational data and it's upto climate science to explain, otherwise as Feynman said, the theory is wrong. (models are wrong and short of being complete)

Sorry Dave, we're heading down a well-trodden path here.  Your stance reveals a biased scepticism.  It is anything but obvious that "the historical narrative sits uncomfortably with the consensus".   You revel in taking pops at the reliance on limited tree ring data yet seem content to put faith in narratives about the state of the ice.  Furthermore your use of the word 'consensus' misses the point.  Look at the science, look at the data, look at what those who have studied the Arctic have to say.

None of the narratives can deal with ice volume.  The narratives I have seen refer to thick ice that is no longer present.

I'm afraid there are occasions when your scepticism leads you badly astray.

Just a little note on 'melt seasons'.

In the past the basin consisted of ice of many ages, some of it , over the last century, glacial from the collapse of the Basins ice shelf. each of these ice types melted at different rates and came in a plethora of shapes and sizes.

The Modern Arctic is moving toward an isostatic plain of 2m FY ice (we see the share of FY ice grow each year) and so more and more of the basin melts out at a similar rate.

This explains why , in recent years, we have seen 'The Cliff' develop over June/July with huge swathes of ice 'blinking out' over a period of days (as was about to occur to the million we saw go during GAC12?).

Though folk may be applauding a 'slow start' to the season this year it will not impact the fate of the majority of the FY ice (which , much like the ice in Hudson Bay, is incapable of lasting through an average season). We saw this type of melt occur in the NW Passage last July ( all FY ice) even as some of our commentators were telling us it would not be open due to the thickness of the pack there?

The mangling of the central basin has fatally wounded large swathes of ice that could have lasted the season ( had it not been so badly mauled) and the rest of the basin is FY ice about to come under 'the blowtorch' from the rapidly heating lands that surround it.

We are now to see a 'Di-Pole' set up and i have to wonder how the well broken ( read 'highly mobile') ice to it's rear will respond to this forcing?

I am very sorry to post such info but i believe that folk would be quite disturbed if the 'reassurances' they are being fed lead them into a false sense of security only to see the worst occur over a period of a few summer weeks in the basin.

Just a little note on 'melt seasons'.

In the past the basin consisted of ice of many ages, some of it , over the last century, glacial from the collapse of the Basins ice shelf. each of these ice types melted at different rates and came in a plethora of shapes and sizes.

The Modern Arctic is moving toward an isostatic plain of 2m FY ice (we see the share of FY ice grow each year) and so more and more of the basin melts out at a similar rate.

This explains why , in recent years, we have seen 'The Cliff' develop over June/July with huge swathes of ice 'blinking out' over a period of days (as was about to occur to the million we saw go during GAC12?).

Though folk may be applauding a 'slow start' to the season this year it will not impact the fate of the majority of the FY ice (which , much like the ice in Hudson Bay, is incapable of lasting through an average season). We saw this type of melt occur in the NW Passage last July ( all FY ice) even as some of our commentators were telling us it would not be open due to the thickness of the pack there?

The mangling of the central basin has fatally wounded large swathes of ice that could have lasted the season ( had it not been so badly mauled) and the rest of the basin is FY ice about to come under 'the blowtorch' from the rapidly heating lands that surround it.

We are now to see a 'Di-Pole' set up and i have to wonder how the well broken ( read 'highly mobile') ice to it's rear will respond to this forcing?

An informative summary of the current position. The next few weeks should be interesting. 2013 extent is currently greater [for the date] than it has been for quite a number of years, but it looks likely we are about to see sharp drops due to the combination of factors listed above.

 2013 extent is currently greater [for the date] than it has been for quite a number of years,

Just a little note on 'melt seasons'.

In the past the basin consisted of ice of many ages, some of it , over the last century, glacial from the collapse of the Basins ice shelf. each of these ice types melted at different rates and came in a plethora of shapes and sizes.

The Modern Arctic is moving toward an isostatic plain of 2m FY ice (we see the share of FY ice grow each year) and so more and more of the basin melts out at a similar rate.

This explains why , in recent years, we have seen 'The Cliff' develop over June/July with huge swathes of ice 'blinking out' over a period of days (as was about to occur to the million we saw go during GAC12?).

Though folk may be applauding a 'slow start' to the season this year it will not impact the fate of the majority of the FY ice (which , much like the ice in Hudson Bay, is incapable of lasting through an average season). We saw this type of melt occur in the NW Passage last July ( all FY ice) even as some of our commentators were telling us it would not be open due to the thickness of the pack there?

The mangling of the central basin has fatally wounded large swathes of ice that could have lasted the season ( had it not been so badly mauled) and the rest of the basin is FY ice about to come under 'the blowtorch' from the rapidly heating lands that surround it.

We are now to see a 'Di-Pole' set up and i have to wonder how the well broken ( read 'highly mobile') ice to it's rear will respond to this forcing?

An informative summary of the current position. The next few weeks should be interesting. 2013 extent is currently greater [for the date] than it has been for quite a number of years, but it looks likely we are about to see sharp drops due to the combination of factors listed above.

I don't anticipate any large drops until this cyclone finally clears. It really is putting the arctic into a sense of tempory stasis while priming it for huge melts later. Lots of snow, cloud and low temps have resulted from this persistant cyclone making it very difficult for any melting to really occur in the central basin. So its still a waiting game, and still pretty booring out there atm. In a way, I just want the cyclone to go away so we don't have to be left in suspense for much longer. 

 2013 extent is currently greater [for the date] than it has been for quite a number of years,

Careful, they will say you are trolling and have an agenda  

Great; now we have no sea ice discussion but a whole PhD thesis on how to kill one off. 

Some couple of months? we discussed here the cause of the melt to Arctic Ice and I believe most here put this down to rising air temperatures whilst I (others?) put it down largely to the extension of the Gulf stream. In the research here the Antarctic Ice loss has been put down to warm water melting the undersides of ice shelves.

Anyone know how the GCM's deal with this matter.  I now wonder as to whether the global model forecasts underestimated recent Arctic ice loss because they too consdered air temperatures as more important than warm ocean currents, because our understanding of ocean current changes are not yet fully understood.

It might be down to 'scaling' of the models? The state change , from ice to water is pretty narrow as a 'temp' so the model could be 1c out over a small area but this could make a vast difference to the amount of ice present?

The linked feedbacks to 'ice cover' and 'open water' would then take the divergence of the madel further away from the 'average condition? like model watching, if low A doesn't come off then all the knock on's from low A bite the dust too?

It would be like modeling ice melt? if you are 20cm 'light' on how much melts that year then you are out by a vast swathe of ocean these days?

I think we have just got to equip ourselves to make good decisions as the seasons progress by utilising our own knowledge on how the 'new' basin operates? Should we use 'old basin' dynasmics then we would still want the beaufort Gyre to retain ice and LP systems to protect it?

It might be down to 'scaling' of the models? The state change , from ice to water is pretty narrow as a 'temp' so the model could be 1c out over a small area but this could make a vast difference to the amount of ice present?

The linked feedbacks to 'ice cover' and 'open water' would then take the divergence of the madel further away from the 'average condition? like model watching, if low A doesn't come off then all the knock on's from low A bite the dust too?

It would be like modeling ice melt? if you are 20cm 'light' on how much melts that year then you are out by a vast swathe of ocean these days?

I think we have just got to equip ourselves to make good decisions as the seasons progress by utilising our own knowledge on how the 'new' basin operates? Should we use 'old basin' dynasmics then we would still want the beaufort Gyre to retain ice and LP systems to protect it?

Is the Arctic sea ice completely fresh, there must be some salt content in the ice. I thought first year ice is actually among the saltiest, and multiyear ice is much purer. If this is the case then the freezing point must be slightly below zero. The minimun ocean temperature under the ice is about -1.8C which is the temp for the long winter across most of the basin. But what happens at this time of year when the SST is below 0C but above -1.8C? I keep thinking simple thermodynamics, but things get very complicated very quickly with solutions rather than pure liquids and gases